ChatterBank2 mins ago
Terrorists?
Thankfully, there hasn't been a terrorist attack in this country. Is this because our security service is quietly doing its job, all terrorists are locked up, or there isn't a terrorist threat?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Pootle. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
someone once told me that pigeons don't cr@p in their own nests.... perhaps this is why the "terrorists " haven't attacked the UK yet.
I am sure the security services do a fantastic job, but I do firmly believe that the terrorist threat is over exagerated.
It is a useful tool of the government and helps ramrod certain decisions through parliament (getting a bit stuck at moment though).
To be honest, if you really wanted to blow up the Houses of Parliament etc, it would be very easy - look at Fathers for Justice as an example of what can be done.
Just as every Nazi is not shaven headed, not all terrorists have bearsd and are of Mid Eastern appearance.
I think the government are onto a good thing by over exagerating this, can keep all the details extremely quite (can't discuss it with you sorry) etc, anc can do whatever they want in the interest of state security.......
I also don't beleive that the security serives are sudenly amazing at counter terrorism when they couldn't do a lot against the IRA - lets face it they could infiltrate the IRA a lot easier than they could Al Qaeda
It is a useful tool of the government and helps ramrod certain decisions through parliament (getting a bit stuck at moment though).
To be honest, if you really wanted to blow up the Houses of Parliament etc, it would be very easy - look at Fathers for Justice as an example of what can be done.
Just as every Nazi is not shaven headed, not all terrorists have bearsd and are of Mid Eastern appearance.
I think the government are onto a good thing by over exagerating this, can keep all the details extremely quite (can't discuss it with you sorry) etc, anc can do whatever they want in the interest of state security.......
I also don't beleive that the security serives are sudenly amazing at counter terrorism when they couldn't do a lot against the IRA - lets face it they could infiltrate the IRA a lot easier than they could Al Qaeda
Personally I do not understand the thinking behind the constant doom mongering of the police services. The threat is overexaggerated - remember, outside 9-11, how many attacks on home soil have there been? in the last 4 years? hmmm. Yet despite decades of very obvious IRA terrorism, the govt did not feel the need to introduce measure curtailing our civil liberties. hmmm
not forgetting at all QM -and that is the point - if someone wants to explode a bomb and don't mind being killed a the saem time it is very easy - its getting away with it that is the hard part!
The IRA did this (plant bombs and run away) for many years - there has (to my knowledge) never been a suicide attack in this country from Al Qaeda.
The IRA did this (plant bombs and run away) for many years - there has (to my knowledge) never been a suicide attack in this country from Al Qaeda.
yes how many suicide bombings have there been in the US and here since 9-11?
But that has been cos they have introduced these new measures surely? . . . oh wait!
To subscribe to popular opinion is to buy into the govt fallacy that there are hordes of terrorists with suicide bombs, qu'rans and false passports queing up to inflict carnage on the UK. Fact is, the terrorist threat, while present, is massively overstated, and has been used to push through extremely dubious legislation based on the fears of the 'great' british public.
If it's agreed that the terrorist threat is "present", that's surely enough for steps to be taken to prevent its becoming a reality rather than just a threat! Surely no-one would claim that things had been exaggerated if 173 people, say, died outside Windsor Registry Office in April as compared to the over 2,000 slaughtered in the Twin Towers. If even one person dies of terrorist activity, everyone will happily admit that a real threat existed and no-one will even mention 'exaggeration'.
I agree with Oneeyedvic and El D; the threat is massively distorted by the government (and some sections of the media) and that threat is used to soften us up before introducing draconian laws curtailing our civil liberties. We all have an infinitely higher chance of being hit by the proverbial bus than being blown up by a terrorist�s bomb.
So QM, you believe that laws should be introduced that allow our police forces to pick up anyone, hold them without charge, for as long as they want, without any reason given and without their legal representative knowing why they are being held?
Point is that 173 people haven't died in this country from terrorist attacks - that is for one of 3 reasons - (1) there is no threat, (2) our security forces are amazing and can stop all these people despite the fact they couldn't 10 years ago or (3) a combination of the above 2 - ie an over exagerated threat and some improved security.
We can argue all day long about if there is a threat or not and lets face in neither of us know - I am just concerned about the level of 'dodgy' legislation coming through in the name of democracy.
But if one hypothetical person is saved, then is it okay?
Yes I would claim it had been exaggerated. It has been for the last 4 years and will continue to be as long as it serves the goverments purpose and sells newspapers. I have no doubt that there are people out there with an agenda against the UK, however the idea that there is a huge global network of waiting martyrs and fanatical types is just plain wrong. And no, I do not believe the saving of one life is worth the absolute destruction of our civil rights. Millions of people have died to preserve them and now they are being whittled away through ignorance, fear, and the gullibility of the stupid masses. As I said, why were these measures not introduced during the Irish troubles. I guarantee you they would have saved lives. But now, simply because they can cash in on the general xenophobia and stereotyping so effectively carried out by the media (turban/beard/asylum seeker = terrorist) it is possible. To be honest, I am not only ashamed to be associated with such pathetic measures but deeply disappointed in the lack of backbone shown by British society. How does it go - 'when they came for me, there was noone left to protest . . .'
(We're really going to have to stop meeting like this, Vic!)
My answer to your opening paragraph is an unequivocal and resounding "Yes!" That's because I don't believe the relevant authorities are intent on creating a police state in order to victimise people willy-nilly.Too many people think today's 'baddies' are much the same sort of folk as those that used to say to PC Dixon: "It's a fair cop, guv. You got me bang to rights and no mistake!"
None of the people in Belmarsh was truly "imprisoned". Each was perfectly free to say to the Governor there: "Right, that's it. I'm off" - as, indeed two of the original detainees there actually did - and he'd have had no option but to say: "Right, away you go." The only proviso, of course, was that they had to keep on going until they reached Dover or Heathrow with onward travel plans.
That seemed perfectly reasonable to me, as does the possible banging-up of British citizens now who, police and intelligence services believe, represent a threat to other British lives. Better by far that they be inconvenienced - should they later be shown to have been innocent - than that some of us be dead.
The Indian Ocean countries are, I understand, planning to create a tsunami-warning system. Should we say: "Aw, come on! There's been only one major tsunami there in living memory. Don't exaggerate the threat by taking precautions now, for goodness' sake!" (Surely that's what those who harp on about there having been only one Twin Towers attack must believe.)
A threat is a threat...end of story...and we cannot know its extent. If you "cannot know" it, then you obviously cannot logically claim it to be exaggerated. The Spanish authorities didn't know its extent until they had to start collecting corpses from trains.
There, I for one shall leave the matter.
"A threat is a threat end of story"......my how I wish my world was black & white.
I must confess I have (in anger) threatened to hit someone before. Well bang to rights and no mistake, better lock me up and throw away the key!
Yes, there are people who have threatened this country. Yes these people must be stopped, but to a mind as simple as mine - if someone is guilty of a crime, they should be given a trial and found innocent or guilty by a judge.
If there is sufficient proof then this should be presented. If there is not, then you purely suspect someone. No proof should mean no guilt. Unless of course we no longer live in a democracy but in 1939 Germany.
What about the British citizens who were in Guantanamo (sp?) Bay , what about the Guilford 4? Should we think that they weren't guilty of any crime but they may have been, so its okay that they were locked up?
QM, whether you will admit it or not, this (and previous) governments and media have exagerated the threat in order for the government to get through certain laws. It would be nice to believe that the government would use these laws responsibly, but the hypocracy of most politicians is fairly well documented.
The Spanish have had terrorist issues - did National ID cards help them? Under Spanish Law, Persons accused of serious crimes (defined as those which carry a prison sentence of more than three years) may be held in pre-trial detention for up to four years -did that help them?
By creating a police state, only the innocent suffer.
cont
I must confess I have (in anger) threatened to hit someone before. Well bang to rights and no mistake, better lock me up and throw away the key!
Yes, there are people who have threatened this country. Yes these people must be stopped, but to a mind as simple as mine - if someone is guilty of a crime, they should be given a trial and found innocent or guilty by a judge.
If there is sufficient proof then this should be presented. If there is not, then you purely suspect someone. No proof should mean no guilt. Unless of course we no longer live in a democracy but in 1939 Germany.
What about the British citizens who were in Guantanamo (sp?) Bay , what about the Guilford 4? Should we think that they weren't guilty of any crime but they may have been, so its okay that they were locked up?
QM, whether you will admit it or not, this (and previous) governments and media have exagerated the threat in order for the government to get through certain laws. It would be nice to believe that the government would use these laws responsibly, but the hypocracy of most politicians is fairly well documented.
The Spanish have had terrorist issues - did National ID cards help them? Under Spanish Law, Persons accused of serious crimes (defined as those which carry a prison sentence of more than three years) may be held in pre-trial detention for up to four years -did that help them?
By creating a police state, only the innocent suffer.
cont
Off topic and on a personal note, I don't think an early Tsunami warning system is worthwhile for 2 reasons - (1) It is a bit like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted (the last report I saw on this said that the next anticipated tsunami will be in around 400 years) and (2) the money it will cost can be far better spent on eradicating poverty in those areas.
And before you say I am uncaring both my parents and my uncle are off to Sri Lanka in two weeks to help at an orphanage in two weeks time.
And incidently, I bleieve there is a chance that we may be hit by an asteroid that will destroy the world - should billions of pounds be spent on looking at that 'threat'???
And before you say I am uncaring both my parents and my uncle are off to Sri Lanka in two weeks to help at an orphanage in two weeks time.
And incidently, I bleieve there is a chance that we may be hit by an asteroid that will destroy the world - should billions of pounds be spent on looking at that 'threat'???
How very disappointing QM. I suppose you walk around with a lightning conductor on your head? Or would not have minded had the 'planespotters' been locked up indefenitely despite there being little evidence against them. Let us not forget they were charged, let alone accused. More than enough to throw away the key?
Rest assured I am under no illusion as to the calibre of 'baddie' out there. Sadly their abilities seem over emphasised or exagerrated. Apparently we should have suffered a major incident by now. Many times over. The installation of a tsunami warning system is of course completely different as I do not seem to see any human liberties curtailed as a result? I do not subscribe to vics view that it is pointless as in the future I believe it will come in very handy.
What most disappoints me is your willingness to accept the restriction of civil rights if you believe that you are safer as a result. Who defines the boundary where safety lies? Surely then, according to your logic, all alleged murderers, rapists, paedophiles, all manner of people who can cause harm to a person, should be locked up as soon as the finger is pointed. How about burglars, or petty thieves. Far better they be inconvenienced than any of us eh? Just point the finger and they will disappear. No trial, no proof needed, the mere suspicion is enough. Can't take any risks eh? Better them that us.
To be perfectly honest, I cannot believe what I am reading. Are people so palpably stupid? If there is enough PROOF that someone is associated with various crimes, then it will be a simple matter to charge and prosecute them. If there is NO PROOF then there is no basis to restrict them in British society. And yes that is the price we pay for living in
1. A democracy
2. A free and civilised society
Anyone who thinks that imprisonment without trial is acceptable is quite simply a myopic, small minded and scared little person.
'I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it', one of the cornerstone philosophies of democracy, seems to have been replaced with 'I don't like what you are saying and I therefore refuse to defend your rights at all'.
I sincerely hope that a few decades down the line those of limited mind are not subject to the measures they so meekly bent over and took during this period of scare mongering. Get some balls, get some integrity, stop hiding under the bed, and face the real world.
I sincerely hope that a few decades down the line those of limited mind are not subject to the measures they so meekly bent over and took during this period of scare mongering. Get some balls, get some integrity, stop hiding under the bed, and face the real world.
Although composed in some haste and by many hands after much bargaining, the Magna Carta of 1215 is still the nearest thing we have to a "Bill of Rights" and remains the basis for many of the laws of this land. Consider this extract:
"In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it.
"No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land."
In spite of an real, perceived, anticipated or invented "terrorist" threat, this precept should be upheld. It is this principle, along with other noble assertions in the 1215 document that set us apart as a nation from Dictatorships, Totalitarian oppression, and savagery. We should not allow today's ephemeral politicos removing this most essential and enshrined right for their tawdry vote gathering agenda.
P.S. As a maybe driver of the proverbial bus (Number 9 headed towards Stitches) I shall keep my weather eye peeled for the hypothetical person!
"In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it.
"No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land."
In spite of an real, perceived, anticipated or invented "terrorist" threat, this precept should be upheld. It is this principle, along with other noble assertions in the 1215 document that set us apart as a nation from Dictatorships, Totalitarian oppression, and savagery. We should not allow today's ephemeral politicos removing this most essential and enshrined right for their tawdry vote gathering agenda.
P.S. As a maybe driver of the proverbial bus (Number 9 headed towards Stitches) I shall keep my weather eye peeled for the hypothetical person!
What if its not exageration.
What if there is an attack. Who will get the blame.
Mr Blair. It will be all his fault for not doing anything. But He can't because people complain. The very same people who will be the first to complain if something does go wrong.
These terrorists have no problem harming any one even if its there own. And no we don't know who they are because people lie and cheat to achieve their aims.
Its odd how the USA managed to catch Sadam but not the guy who masterminded 9/11.
But who cares so long as we have the goverment to blame when it hits the fan.
He' damned if he does and damned if he dosn't.
I wouldn't have his job for the world.
